Below are five example family lines. One is the Walter Kep/John L. Keep line beginning in 1230 in England. The others
are of the John Keep of Longmeadow descendants--Marcus Floyd Keep, Charles Russell Keep, Donald Bruce Keep, and Paul Eugene Keep.

The
DNA results above show that the ancestor of John Keep of Longmeadow is in the line of Walter Kep/John Lister Keep of England.

DNA testing of this Project has discovered that the Longmeadow John Keep's ancestor lies in the Walter Kep
- John L. Keep family line on the far right ------>

column, earlier or later than Walter Kep, and therefore all descendants
of John Keep of LM have Walter as their furthest back known English link.At this point, the names in the line of
John Keep of Longmeadow leading to the family to the right are not known. Further testing and research are needed to discover
these names.

John KEPE

born 1550 Ecton

William KEEP

born about 1585

Thomas KEEP

born 1610

John KEEP

of Longmeadow

Killed by Indians

26
Mar 1676

John KEEP

of Longmeadow

Killed by Indians

26 Mar 1676

John KEEP

of Longmeadow

Killed by Indians

26 Mar 1676

John KEEP

ofLongmeadow

Killed
by Indians

26 Mar 1676

John KEEP

born 1651

Wellingborough

Samuel KEEP

born 1670

Longmeadow

Mass.

Samuel KEEP

born 1670

Longmeadow

Mass.

Samuel
KEEP

born 1670

Longmeadow

Mass.

Samuel KEEP

born 1670

Longmeadow

Mass.

Thomas KEEP

born 1682

Matthew
KEEP

born 1722

Longmeadow

Samuel KEEP

born 1700

Longmeadow

Samuel KEEP

born 1700

Longmeadow

Samuel KEEP

born 1700

Longmeadow

Thomas KEEP

born 1724

Matthew
KEEP

born 1745

Longmeadow

Samuel KEEP

born 1739

Longmeadow

Samuel KEEP

born 1739

Longmeadow

Samuel KEEP

born 1739

Longmeadow

Richard KEEP

born
1765

Transported to

Botany Bay 1807

Marsena KEEP

born 1769

Longmeadow

Samuel KEEP

born 1774

Longmeadow

Heber KEEP

born 1776

Longmeadow

Heber KEEP

born
1776

Longmeadow

Joseph KEEP

born 1794

Wootton

Marsena KEEP

born 1802

Keepville

Pennsylvania

Nathan Cooley KEEP

born 1800

Longmeadow

Henry Augustus

KEEP

born
1811

Longmeadow

Henry Augustus

KEEP

born 1811

Longmeadow

Joseph Keep

born 1821

Abner Newton KEEP

born 1834

Keepville, Penn.

John Haskell KEEP

born
1836

Boston, Mass.

Charles David

KEEP

born 1857

Alton, Illinois

Charles David

KEEP

born 1857

Alton, Illinois

Mark KEEP

born 1856

Cardington

Bedfordshire

Frank
Elijah KEEP

born 1855

Keepville, Penn.

John Haskell KEEP

born 1869

Brooklyn, New York

Charles Russell

KEEP

born 1896

Hartford, Conn.

Charles
Russell

KEEP

born 1896

Hartford, Conn.

Joseph Henry KEEP

born 1879

St Albans

Hertfordshire

Carlton Francis KEEP

born 1890

Hull, Iowa

Donald
Bruce KEEP

born 1900

Well, New York

Charles Russell KEEP

born 1929

New York, N. Y.

Charles Russell KEEP

born 1929

New York, N. Y.

Arthur Joseph
KEEP

born 1921

Higham Ferrers

Paul Leroy KEEP

born 1912

Sioux Falls

South Dakota

Donald Bruce KEEP

born 1927

Syracuse, New York

Marcus
Floyd KEEP

born 1958

New York, N. Y.

John Lister KEEP

born 1949

Finedon

Northamptonshire

England

Paul Eugene KEEP

born 1934

Freeport, Illinois

Project
participants are shown here in white boxes with their ancestral lines.

1)The East Midland Keeps (including John Keep of Longmeadow): The Green Rows

While
there is a great deal of testing to be done by male participants with the last name Keep, our project has in its early stages discovered
the ancestral connection of John Keep of Longmeadow, Massachusetts, USA, d 1676, with Walter Kep, born ca 1230, Astwood, Buckinghamshire,
England.It is evident now that John's family lived in England and that he did not change his name upon arrival in America,
ending speculation about that.This connection had been sought for over 300 years without success, but DNA science has enabled
the Keep Family DNA Project to accomplish it very quickly.

The descendants of John Keep of Longmeadow are shown at rows 1, 2,
5, 6, 12, 13, and 14, and all show similar numbers to those of Walter’s English descendant at row 3, which provides the proof of the
relationship between the two families that has for so long been sought.This evidence clearly demonstrates that the ancestral
lines at some point during the 1600s merge into one line back to Walter Kep of Astwood. See the family trees below.

Our
initial tests involved Marcus Floyd Keep, row 1, and his father, Charles Russell Keep, Jr., row 2, direct descendants of John Keep
of Longmeadow, and John Keep, currently living in London, row 3, a descendant of Walter Kep. (See their ancestral lines on the lower
part of this page.)Marcus and his father’s DNA results provide the benchmark against which the other tests were initially compared.
Those familiar with the nomenclature of DNA results will understand the column headings in the table.Others should simply look
at the Marker numbers beside the Participants tested, which will allow you to see the matches in the columns.In the case of
Marcus and his father, we have an identical set of Marker numbers, which is to be expected and added veracity to the research. This
test confirmed that the non-recombinant or "junk" DNA of the male Y-chromosome contains our ancestral footprint, which is passed from
father to son.

If you now compare the American results of Marcus, row 1, Charles, row 2, and Paul row 6, to the results of John
of London, row 3, you can see the Marker numbers for all three are identical up to Marker No. 43.In the remaining Markers to
67 there are three one-off differences, indicating that a common ancestor exists between them.Similar results were obtained
for Donald Bruce row 5, Philip row 12, Scott row 13, and Jonathan row 14 (Marcus’ brother). By achieving an identical match to another
participant, the probability of sharing a common ancestry exists.The greater the number of matches in the number of Markers
tested the degree of probability increases. Consideration must also be given to variants in respect of Markers that may appear in
the test results, which may be caused by change or mutation of the Y- chromosome.A factor of one would still indicate a common
ancestry, but any higher variation would suggest that there is a lesser probability of a link.

The Testing of Donald Bruce Keep,
row 5 and Philip Richard Keep row 12, are significant results, because, like Marcus they can trace an unbroken line back to John Keep
of Longmeadow, but their results out of the 25 markers tested, 24 match whencompared to Marcus’ results, but one varies by a
one-off difference. With the science still in its infancy, Donald and Philip’s results poses the question of the rate and frequency
of variants in Markers caused by change or mutation of the Y- chromosome. The more participants we attract to the project the greater
our understanding and interpretation of the results and variants will become.

It should be noted that the test results of Scott
row 13, however, have further strengthened the established link, because they differ by two one-off differences to those of John at
row 3, and as such has established a new working benchmark.

2) The Wessex Keeps:

The Blue Rows

A
major breakthrough in our knowledge of the Keep families has come with the testing of Nicholas Keep row 7, David Keep row 8, William
A. Keep row 10, George Edward Keep row 11, Simon John Keep row 15, John William Keep row 17, and Alan Ernest Keep row 18.All
but row 17 results are very close matches. William and George have mismatches that indicate the common ancestor of this group is probably
further in the past than the common ancestor of the others, as is Simon row 15. What is interesting about William's and George’s
results is that according to a longstanding paper trail genealogy they are linked to the East Midlands Keeps, but the DNA test results
came out of the blue and shows that they are part of the Wessex Keeps, which clearly indicates that we should not take earlier
family research at face value.

While John Wm. row 17, and David row 8, are more closely related
than John Wm. is to the others, the common ancestor is also further in the past because of mismatches.However, you will
note that this group does not match those of Marcus et al, and we now can say with some certainty that there are at least two separate
and unconnected Keep families. When these results are considered against those for Peter Ronald Keep row 4, and Allen Keep row 9,
there is a strong possibility of at least four Keep clans.We will only be able to answer this question by encouraging more
male Keeps of all family groups to participate.

3)The Middlesex Keeps:The Yellow Row

Peter Ronald Keep,
row 4, relocated to America from England during the 1960s, and was born in 1935 at Hendon, England. He is descended from Walter Keep
of Islington, Middlesex, England, who was born in 1762. His test result alerted us to the fact that there exists more than one Keep
family group. Only two of Peter’s twelve markers matched Marcus’ results, and therefore, we could not establish a common ancestry.
The importance of Peter’s test is that it clearly demonstrates that a shared family name does not confer a shared lineage or a genetic
link.For convenience, Peter’s family group is now referred to as the “Middlesex Keeps”. Because of the expanded scope of our
project, Peter's results are important as further testing of Keeps world wide may well reveal additions to his family line.

4)The Enfield Keeps:The Tan Row

Another stand alone participant is Allen Keep row 9 of Bristol, England, who
can trace his family line back to Richard Keep of Enfield, Middlesex, England, born 1757. Allen’s test results do not match
the other participants so far, and again point to the need for more male Keep participants to join the project, and undertake a test.As more testing is done, it is hoped that other Keeps will discover their own family genetic links. We have called this line the Enfield
Keeps

5) The Keep/Stilmans:The Purple Row

The test results of Rowan Keep at row 16 are significant, because
they have confirmed that Stephen Keep baptized 3 Feb 1771 at Marston Moretaine, Bedfordshire, England, was the illegitimate son of
Ann (Bates) Keep. This was always alluded to in the Parish register, which noted Stephen as “Ann Keep’s boy” or just the “Keep boy”.Ann married Thomas Keep, a descendant of Walter Kep, but Stephen was born some three years after Thomas’ death. It is purported that
the actual father was a Richard Stilman, and as stated above we hope to be able to establish Stephen’s father in the future, providing
a match is found along the way.

Much has been published and broadcast about the pitfalls of DNA Y-chromosome research as a tool
in genealogy, but these pitfalls centre around the use of the science to determine our deep ancestry or Haplogroups, i.e. who our
ancestors were over 10,000 years ago.Whilst this is an interesting aside, it cannot detract from the tried and tested reliability
of the marker comparisons that are being used here.

Many other projects provide detailed commentary about the tests and in depth
explanations of the results, but we have elected to keep this section relatively understandable.If you wish to find out more,
we would recommend that you do so.We are not professing to be experts in this field, and until we started this project had
very little knowledge of what it entailed.However, in a relatively short period of time we have achieved some exceptional results,
far beyond our original expectations and have created a sound platform on which to advance the project to meet our set aims and
objectives. We cannot emphasis enough that our success is dependant on more Keep males participating in the project. If you are interested
please contact Bob Warner or John Keep for further information or assistance.